FONTAINE.] THE EMMONS COLLECTION. 277 
of Dr. Emmons, so happily preserved to science, proves to be of course 
a most important consummation and sheds a flood of new light on the 
whole subject of the Older Mesozoic flora of America. Among other 
results, it has the effect of rescuing from an oblivious synonymy and 
uncertainty a number of Dr. Emmons’s names, some of them dating 
back to his North Carolina report of 1856. In the synonymy of the 
species in Professor Fontaine’s descriptive paper that follows, and:for 
which I am alone responsible, I have endeavored to do full justice to 
Dr. Emmons’s names by preserving them as having priority over all 
others. In a few cases these old species of Dr. Emmons also occur 
in the York deposits as made known by Mr. Wanner and embodied in 
an earlier part of this paper. In such cases, to avoid unnecessary 
repetition, the synonymy is given there and only a reference to it made 
here. 
Prof. J. A. Holmes, State geologist of North Carolina, has recently 
found a few more of Dr. Emmons’s Triassic plants, which he sent to 
Professor Fontaine. The latter informs me that there is nothing new 
among them, and has offered to send them to Washington. 
The following is Professor Fontaine’s report on the Emmons 
collection: 
NOTES ON FOSSIL PLANTS COLLECTED BY DR. EBENEZER EMMONS FROM THE OLDER 
MESOZOIC ROCKS OF NORTH CAROLINA. 
By Wm. M. FontTAINE. 
Dr. Ebenezer Emmons, when State geologist of North Carolina, 
collected a number of fossil plants in the Older Mesozoic beds of that 
State. In Pt. VI of his American Geology, published in 1857, he 
gave descriptions and figures of them. At a subsequent time the 
writer made collections of fossil plants from beds of apparently the 
same age in Virginia. Descriptions and figures of these were pub- 
lished as a Monograph of the United States Geological Survey, Vol. VI. 
As it was apparent from a comparison of the Virginia fossils with 
the figures and descriptions given by Emmons of his plants that there 
was much resemblance in a number of cases, it was necessary for a 
satisfactory determination toexamine Emmons’s specimens. Emmons 
identified some of his forms with Virginia plants. It was quite pos- 
sible that the number of plants known to him from the Virginia beds 
was much smaller than that collected by the writer. Had he been able 
to compare this larger collection with his own he would possibly have 
made additional identifications. Besides, the more complete series of 
specimens collected from the Virginia beds might throw light on plants 
that he, from more imperfect specimens, had erroneously determined. 
A careful inspection of his material would be required to settle these 
points. Accordingly efforts were made to locate the type specimens 
